Talk:Cyclone Freddy

What's needed to get this to a good/featured article

• Shorten the meteorological history to as short as necessary. There already is a sub-article. This would allow there to be more room for other aspects of the article.
• Rewrite the parts of the impact section so it's more about what the storm did, and less about who reported what. Examples include:

• "Locals reported seeing roofs torn off houses, broken windows, and streets flooded in Quelimane."
• . The nation's UNICEF chief of advocacy, communications, and partnerships, Guy Taylor, stated that there was "lots of destruction", and that Freddy was "potentially a disaster of large magnitude". Taylor also noted that rural areas were completely destroyed. "
• "State TV reported that hundreds were displaced in Freddy's wake. "
• "Locals said localized flooding was an issue even before landfall"
• "Dozens of houses were reported being washed away in floodwaters in Chilobwe."
• "It was stated that 14 districts suffered impacts from Freddy, equating to over half the country. Chakwera also said that 36 roads were broken, nine bridges washed away, and there were still many villages inaccessible by 20 March"

• Organize information together where possible, with the most important information first, progressing to the least important information by the end. Typically, the first paragraph of an impact section includes direct meteorological observations, where possible.

• An example for the above: right now there is a mention of the cholera outbreak in two separate paragraphs right now.

• Aftermath and rebuilding in the year (and now longer) since Freddy.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Any kind of academic literature published would also need inclusion. Noah, BSBA^Talk 02:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Merged Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy

I merged the article Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy into Cyclone Freddy mainly to improve the latter's comprehension, quality, and readability. Less topics would overlap between the two and managing the Cyclone Freddy topic would be easier. Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy is very short and it can be included in Cyclone Freddy without needing to be trimmed. FourNoddlers (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@FourNoddlers: Dont BOLDly merge the article if you were already reverted once. I have restored the status quo. Please establish consensus for a merge. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CON, I assume consensus in favor of the merge from the lack of current objections to the merge itself. FourNoddlers (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@FourNoddlers:, that is not how it works. Once your bold merge was reverted, the third phase of WP:BRD kicks in: discuss. You must now create a discussion following the procedure at Wikipedia:Merging#Procedure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but can you please unprotect Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy? I can't follow the procedure you linked because I can't edit it. FourNoddlers (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger By the way, this is the discussion. I said I'd start it here but no users have objected the merge when it started. Also, I don't understand why you'd protect Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy. How am I suppose to place the template if I can't edit the article? FourNoddlers (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It was protected because you were edit-warring to attempt your merge after being told it was controversial. I will place the template for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is all a misunderstanding. I was not edit-warring. I only made two reverts spanning seven days. I wasn't going to revert you because I wanted to give you a chance to explain why you reverted the merge. If it helps my case, I'll explain the events leading up to now.

When I merged the two articles, @MakaylaHippo1998 reverted me because there was no talk page discussion. She wasn't objecting to the procedure of the merge, not the merge itself. She didn't know that not every merge needs a talk page discussion if the reason for the merge is obvious.

I thought that was the case, but I explained in depth anyway as I reverted their revert. However, @Hurricane Noah reverted me because my bold merge was reverted, even though MakaylaHippo1998 was not opposing the merge itself.

I waited at least seven days until determining consensus because it's the minimum time a discussion should stay open per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Since there were no objections, I merged the articles. You came, reverted my merge, and protected Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy, which I believe was overkill. Why would someone protect a page because I merged an article?

While reading the merge procedure, I realized I forgot to tag the articles. No one would have been aware of this discussion unless they went to this page. I believe that's why you assumed I was edit-warring. If you can, please unprotect Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy because I wasn't edit-warring and I have no intention of doing so. FourNoddlers (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Both this main article and the Humanitarian response need expansion. The latter article is out of date by almost 1.5 years and there's plenty of additional English news sources detailing recovery efforts after the initial article was drafted which would expand that significantly. There's also scholarly literature on the recovery efforts as well. I would assume that there would also be plenty of local French sources since that's a major language of Mozambique. There's plenty of material available to use to expand it, so I wouldn't recommend a merger.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing this. FourNoddlers (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Where should Cyclone Katrina go?

Not trying to Edit war or break the three-revert rule, so let’s discuss it here, I hope to reach a consensus

In the summary from this link

It stated “TC Victor formed from a tropical low that moved across northern Australia, and was most likely the remnants of former TC Katrina in the Coral Sea. It had no impact on the WA coastline. Once it had moved west southwest away from the north Kimberley coast it intensified on 9 and 10 February, reaching cyclone intensity at 1800 WST 10 February. Victor peaked on 12 February at category 3 intensity but then gradually weakened over open waters passing west of 90°E on 16 February. The time period from the formation of the low from which TC Katrina formed in the Coral Sea, through until it could no longer be identified as a low in the central Indian Ocean was at least 50 days.”

The BOM is a highly reliable source, it clearly stated “The time period from the formation of the low from which TC Katrina formed in the Coral Sea, through until it could no longer be identified as a low in the central Indian Ocean was at least 50 days.”

I welcome thoughts on the proposal and assistance in drafting acceptable wording that satisfies both encyclopedic completeness and policy concerns.

Thanks TyphoonHurricaneCyclone (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't include it unless it is mentioned in other reliable sources. The source you provided does not mention anything involving Cyclone Freddy, and it would be original research by synthesis to claim that Cyclone Katrina lasted longer than Cyclone Freddy. FourNoddlers (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@TyphoonHurricaneCyclone: Yes, the BoM is an extremely reliable source, but the wording in their TCR on Victor-Cindy makes it clear, that they are not 100% sure that it was Katrina that became Victor-Cindy. I would also note that the WMO investigated Freddy's records and confirmed that it was indeed the longest tropical cyclone on record and would presume that the task-force would have been aware of KVC.Jason Rees (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m also open to adding it anywhere, so if it isn’t appropriate for the lead, maybe at least mentioning KVC in the records section could be a good idea, what do you all think?

As always, the goal is to improve Wikipedia, so think of where adding KVC would be appropriate, if you can’t find where to put it or is against mentioning KVC on this article, you can also Oppose adding KVC onto this article.

All I want is a clear answer

Thanks TyphoonHurricaneCyclone (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Do not include Cyclone Katrina anywhere, not even in the see also section. The article should not be stating information that is not reported in reliable sources. FourNoddlers (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – The thing is: BoM's wording doesn't directly state that Cyclones Katrina and Victor-Cindy are considered to be the same system, and there are plenty of cases of lows that evolves into multiple systems throghout their lives, or systems that form from another's remnants, and these aren't considered to be the same system.

Freddy can be continously tracked throgouht it's life, while there's a gap between Katrina's and Victor-Cindy's that indicate that the low went through changes that changes its identity to the point that give both systems separate identities from each other.

Also, just because BoM stated that the low was identifiable for 50 days, doesn't mean that it was automatically the longest-lived one. Neither BoM or anyone else claims such. ABC paulista (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The Freddy article is already on the long side, and Katrina is already linked by also being a retired AUS cyclone. Otherwise I don't think there's a need for it here, as available sources don't consider KVC a single storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)